Overview
Title
To direct the Director of the Secret Service to ensure that any security perimeter is co-extensive with the firing range of firearms likely to be used in assassination attempts and to secure all elevated positions within the firing range of firearms likely to be used in assassination attempts.
ELI5 AI
Imagine a rule that tells bodyguards of important people to make sure they’re safe by checking far enough away so no one can shoot at them, even from places high up like rooftops. This rule says they have to check for a very, very long distance around and make sure it doesn’t cost too much to do it.
Summary AI
H.R. 9357, known as the “AR–15 Perimeter Security Enhancement Act,” requires the Director of the Secret Service to create security perimeters that match the firing range of firearms commonly used in assassination attempts. These perimeters must cover at least a 500-yard radius and include securing all elevated positions, like rooftops and balconies, to prevent unauthorized access. Additionally, the Director must provide Congress with a cost assessment and regular progress reports on implementing these safety measures. The act will take effect 180 days after it is enacted.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "AR–15 Perimeter Security Enhancement Act" is designed to enhance the safety perimeter protections facilitated by the Secret Service. Specifically, it mandates that any security perimeter should align with the firing range of firearms that are likely to be used in assassination attempts. This includes a radius of no less than 500 yards around potential targets. Additionally, it requires the securing of all elevated positions within this range to prevent unauthorized access. The bill also includes requirements for cost assessments and progress reports to be submitted to Congress.
Summary of Significant Issues
A notable issue with the bill is its requirement for a 500-yard perimeter, which can be considered excessive for different situational needs, potentially leading to wasteful spending. The broad stroke approach of implementing such a large area of coverage without situational evaluation may result in inefficient use of resources.
Another concern is the mandate to secure all elevated positions within the perimeter without a clear financial framework, potentially leading to significant costs. This lack of financial prioritization and constraints could result in inefficient resource allocation, as the bill does not specify how funds should be managed effectively.
Additionally, by defining the "firing range" with specific firearms, the bill might unintentionally favor certain manufacturers or models. This aspect could be viewed as giving a market advantage to specific firearm types, raising ethical questions and concerns about fairness.
The bill also lacks clear guidelines for what constitutes "unauthorized access" to elevated positions, creating potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in enforcement. Finally, the 60-day timeline for cost assessment and 90-day reporting requirement might be insufficient for a thorough evaluation and could result in rushed, incomplete assessments.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill is likely to resonate with concerns about the heightened security around high-profile individuals and events. It aims to protect these targets from potential threats using firearms, which, in theory, could contribute to public safety. However, the extensive area that requires securing, as prescribed by the bill, might impose additional financial burdens on taxpayers, raising questions regarding effective allocation of public funds.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the Secret Service, the bill implies additional workload and logistical challenges. The requirement to expand security perimeters significantly may strain the agency’s resources, calling for increased funding and personnel. Consequently, the Secret Service would likely face pressure to balance efficacy with budget constraints.
Private property owners and businesses located within the designated security perimeters might experience restrictions that could disrupt normal operations, potentially affecting their economic activities. These stakeholders might have concerns about the implications of having elevated security zones in their vicinity, such as limited access and possible inconvenience to clients or customers.
Manufacturers of firearms mentioned in the bill might gain unintended visibility and relevance, potentially impacting market dynamics. However, other manufacturers not mentioned might feel marginalized or unfairly excluded, which could influence their standings within the industry.
In conclusion, while the bill aims to enhance the protection measures surrounding potential assassination targets, it poses potential inefficiencies and market biases that could impact various sectors and raise broader questions about resource allocation and fairness.
Issues
The requirement for a security perimeter to be co-extensive with a 500-yard firing range could lead to wasteful spending, as it mandates an extensive area regardless of specific situational needs, potentially resulting in excessive and unnecessary resource allocation. (Section 2(a)(1))
Securing all elevated positions within the firing range, without specific financial constraints or priorities, may incur significant costs and result in inefficient resource allocation if priorities aren't clearly defined. (Section 2(a)(2))
The definition of 'firing range' might favor certain manufacturers or models of firearms by highlighting specific types in a legal context, which could be considered unethical or as providing unintended market advantage. (Section 2(c)(2)(B))
The title 'AR–15 Perimeter Security Enhancement Act' could elicit public concern about the focus on firearms, particularly AR-15s, raising questions about the appropriateness and necessity of such measures. (Section 1)
The bill lacks clear guidelines on what constitutes 'unauthorized access' to elevated positions, which may lead to inconsistencies in enforcement and legal ambiguities. (Section 2(a)(2))
The timeline for cost assessment and reporting might be too short for a comprehensive financial analysis and implementation plan, potentially leading to rushed or incomplete assessments. This raises concerns about the practicality and thoroughness of planning. (Section 2(b))
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill states that it can be referred to as the “AR–15 Perimeter Security Enhancement Act.”
2. Co-extensive perimeter and securing elevated positions requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Secret Service to secure a safety perimeter around areas at risk of sniper attacks, making sure the perimeter is at least 500 yards wide and includes elevated areas. They must also assess costs and report progress to Congress regularly.